Narrative Opinion Summary
Larry Slade appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine, which was based on a nolo contendere plea. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, specifically the crack cocaine found in a cigar tube during his detention by law enforcement. The court finds merit in Slade's argument, noting that the circumstances of his case closely resemble those in R.R. v. State, 715 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). As a result, the court determines that the search should have been suppressed and reverses the trial court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. Judges Thompson, Pleus, and Monaco concur with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Plea of Nolo Contendere and Right to Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Slade's plea of nolo contendere allowed him to reserve the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, which the appellate court found justified in reversing the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: Larry Slade appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine, which was based on a nolo contendere plea. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, specifically the crack cocaine found in a cigar tube during his detention by law enforcement.
Suppression of Evidence under Fourth Amendmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the principle of suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, finding that the search conducted during Slade's detention was unlawful, and thus, the evidence should have been suppressed.
Reasoning: The court finds merit in Slade's argument, noting that the circumstances of his case closely resemble those in R.R. v. State, 715 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). As a result, the court determines that the search should have been suppressed and reverses the trial court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings.